By 
Samsung and Apple’s war in the courts continue to rage on, and they will continue to do so for God knows how long. The latest episode is an appeal by Samsung on the 2012 decision to award Apple $548 million in damages for Samsung’s use of rounded corners in hardware design, as well as the grid of icons used to access apps on the software side.
As this spat continued to intensify, tech companies like Google, Facebook, eBay, Dell, and HP signed a document noting the dangerous precedent that could be set by awarding damages for an entire product based on the infringement of only one of that product’s components. Is an app icon worth 30% of all revenue earned life-to-date? Should someone be able to win 50% of the profit made on a TV because the power button was rectangular in shape with a green light embedded?
They had a good point, but don’t expect Apple to take it lying down. The company has fired back with their own friend of the court briefing filed by folks on the other side: the design industry. Calvin Klein, Paul Smith, and Alexander Wang are some of the biggest designers in the world, and they’re all behind Apple. The Cupertino company even has friends in the automotive industry with Bentley’s chief designer throwing their name in.
The group’s argument is that design is a very important aspect of any product. Design is used to separate one company’s product from another, and if ripped off could lead to massive losses in revenue as unknowing consumers look to go with the more affordable copycat. It’s their opinion, then, that ripping off one aspect of a smartphone’s designs should count for the entirety of its existence.
We can’t say we agree, and we won’t even get started on the fact that these opinions are coming in from people who aren’t even remotely involved in the same industry (aside from maybe Bentley’s automotive association).
What do underwear makers know about smartphones?
We’re not saying Apple isn’t right to be looking for damages. After all, it wasn’t them who awarded themselves these silly patents. But maybe they aren’t owed nearly as much money as they think they are. Whose side are you on?
[via Reuters]
Comments